Geographical indications and appellations of origin in the description of goods: the Russian perspective

Examination procedure
Rospatent examination practice
Options to be considered
Recent Rospatent’s decisions: key takeaways
Practical recommendations

Pursuant to Article 1517(1) of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the exclusive right to a geographical indication (GI) or appellation of origin (AO) registered by the federal executive authority for intellectual property, as well as in cases provided for by an international treaty of the Russian Federation, is in force on the territory of the Russian Federation.

Most applicants are aware that designations, which incorporate, reproduce, or imitate a GI or AO, cannot be registered as trademarks (Article 1483(7) of the Civil Code). However, it is often overlooked that such designations may not be used in the specification of goods and services either — even where the trademark itself is original and does not replicate a registered GI or AO.

Russian law does not expressly prohibit the inclusion of GI or AO designations in the list of goods and services of a trademark application. When objecting, the RUPTO (Rospatent) relies on Article 1492(3)(3) of the Civil Code, which requires that a trademark application include a list of goods for which state registration is sought, grouped by the Nice Classification (ICGS) classes. The legal basis and practical rationale for the restriction are further elaborated in the Guidelines on Administrative Procedures for State Registration of Trademarks, Service Marks, Collective Marks (the “Guidelines”), which constitute Rospatent’s internal instrument for ensuring uniform examination practice.

According to Paragraph 8 of the Guidelines, designations constituting appellations of origin must not be included in the specification of goods and/or services, as doing so may result in their genericization.

Moreover, if the specification of goods contains any indication of the place of origin that does not correspond to reality, such a registration will be considered false or capable of misleading consumers as to the goods or their manufacturer.

Article 1492(3)(3) of the Civil Code is the main legal ground for issuing objections against the inclusion of GI or AO designations in the list of goods and services. However, Rospatent may also invoke the following Articles, which do not directly relate to the issue:

• Article 1483(7) of the Civil Code, which prohibits registration as trademarks of designations that incorporate, reproduce, or imitate a GI or AO, if the AO or GI is registered or applied for registration in Russia;
• Article 1483(5) of the Civil Code, which — in accordance with Russia’s international treaty obligations — prohibits registration of designations that constitute or contain elements protected in one of the member states of the relevant international treaty as designations identifying wines or spirits as originating in the territory of a member state (or a geographical object therein), where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the product is essentially attributable to its geographical origin, provided the trademark is intended for wines or spirits not originating from the respective geographical area. This provision gives effect, inter alia, to Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement, if the AO or GI is not registered or applied for registration in Russia.

The Examiner considers the above provisions and may even cite them in the Office Action, but does not indicate these Articles as the legal grounds for objections.

Examination procedure

• Where the specification of goods in an international trademark registration contains a GI or AO designation, Rospatent issues a provisional refusal consolidating all available grounds: absolute grounds, relative grounds, and objections regarding the specification of goods. The deadline for filing a response to the provisional refusal is six months from the date of notification. This deadline is nonextendable.
• Where the specification of goods in a national trademark application contains a GI or AO designation, Rospatent issues an Office Action (Inquiry) directed exclusively at the specification of goods and services. The deadline for filing a response to the Inquiry is three months from the date of the Inquiry, with a possible extension of up to six months.

Rospatent examination practice

Rospatent’s practice shows that the inclusion of a protected GI or AO into the specification of goods is treated as a separate issue. Where the specification contains a designation protected as a GI or AO, Rospatent considers that such wording may conflict with the legal regime of protection of GIs and AOs. The rationale is that including the protected designation in the list of goods may create the impression that the term is a generic product name and lead to the genericization of such designations.

The Examiner may refer to both protected in Russia as a GI or AO (like “Tequila” identifying spirits originating from Mexico and protected in Russia under AO registration No. 126) and protected in another state, which is a party to an applicable international treaty and identifies wines or spirits as originating from a specific geographical area (like “MEZCAL” identifying a traditional Mexican alcoholic beverage protected in Mexico and under Lisbon Agreement).

Another objection the Examiner may raise is that the goods are misleading consumers as to their origin, producer, or place of production. The above is applicable if the applicant is not located in the relevant geographical area. This approach appears in the Champagne practice, where the applicant was located in the US, and the term “Champagne” in the specification was considered capable of misleading consumers as to the manufacturer and geographical origin of the goods.

Options to be considered

In both tracks, Rospatent’s objections require the applicant to bring the specification of goods and services into conformity with the ICGS. The applicant may:

• replace the GI/AO term with a more common name of the product, preferably using the ICGS terms or with a description of the product and its important features, for instance: “Champagne” may be replaced by “sparkling wine”,
• “Cognac” may be replaced by “brandy”,
• “Scotch whiskey” may be replaced by “whiskey”,
• “Tequila” may be replaced by “distilled beverage from blue agave”,
• “Grappa” may be replaced by “grapebased pomace brandy of Italian origin” for Italian producers.
• submit documentary evidence confirming the applicant’s right to use such designation in the specification (e.g., consent, authorization, or certification documents from a competent body); or
• delete the objected term from the list.

Recent Rospatent’s decisions: key takeaways

POMMERY CHAMPAGNE, International Registration No. 1810041

In the POMMERY CHAMPAGNE case (case No. 2025B03582 of 10.02.2026), Rospatent initially refused protection in Russia because the specification contained the wording “wines with the protected designation of origin ‘Champagne’”. The refusal also referred to the descriptive/non-distinctive nature of the bottle shape and the word element “CHAMPAGNE”.

The applicant agreed to disclaim the bottle shape and the word “CHAMPAGNE” and submitted consent from the competent body, the Interprofessional Committee for Champagne Wine. Rospatent also considered that similar consent had already supported the protection of other POMMERY marks for the goods, including “wines with the protected appellation of origin ‘Champagne’”. As a result, protection was allowed for the relevant goods, subject to disclaimers.

Important: where the applicant is connected with the relevant geographical origin and obtains authorization from the competent body, the protected designation may be retained in the specification.

LA GRITONA, International Registration No. 1786255

In the LA GRITONA case (case No. 2025B02427 of 19.01.2026), the specification originally included “tequila; alcoholic beverages except beers.” Rospatent objected because “tequila” identifies spirits originating from specific regions of Mexico and is protected in Russia as AO No. 126 in the name of Consejo Regulador del Tequila, A.C. Since the applicant was located in the US, Rospatent also found a risk of misleading consumers as to the producer and origin of the goods.

The applicant amended the specification by replacing “tequila” with “spirits distilled from blue agave”. After the protected designation was removed from the specification, the objections under Article 1483(7) and Article 1483(3)(1) were considered overcome.

Important: replacing a protected GI/AO term with a neutral descriptive wording is an effective way to overcome objections where the applicant cannot rely on a right to use the protected designation.

MEZCAL, Applications Nos. 2023702737 and 2023702742

In the MEZCAL decisions (cases Nos. 2025B00879 and 2025B00983 of 30.12.2025), Rospatent objected against the term “mezcal” both in the trademark and in the specification “alcoholic beverages, except beers, namely mezcal.” The applicant submitted COMERCAM certificates confirming production in Oaxaca. However, Rospatent also relied on the fact that “Mezcal” is protected in the WIPO Lisbon system as an AO No. 731 in the name of the Government of Mexico.

Rospatent concluded that inclusion of “mezcal” into the specification could create a false impression that the term is generic, whereas it is a protected AO. The designation was therefore found inconsistent with Articles 1483(3) and 1483(5) of the Civil Code, despite the submitted certification documents.

The reference materials also note that earlier Rospatent decisions concerning the same applicant and similar goods did not apply Article 1483(5), which indicates that the practice under this provision remains limited and not entirely uniform.

Important: certification documents may be insufficient if Rospatent considers that including the protected AO in the trademark or goods specification undermines the AO’s special protection or may contribute to its generalization.

Practical recommendations

Protected GIs and AOs should not be used in the specification of goods as ordinary product names.

Rospatent’s practice shows that such wording may raise objections where it is found to conflict with the special legal regime for the protection of GIs/AOs, and/or mislead consumers as to the origin of the goods.

The safest approach is to use generic ICGS terms or neutral descriptive wording. A protected GI/AO should be retained in the specification only where the applicant can confirm its legal entitlement to use it, normally by authorization or certification from the competent body.

Recent practice also shows that such evidence is not always sufficient: Rospatent may still object if the inclusion of the protected term undermines the protection of the GI/AO itself.

Finally, although this article cites examples of trademark applications filed for alcoholic beverages, the principles discussed herein are equally applicable to other categories of goods and services.